Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

Obamacare is not constitutional

Unions make up 40 percent of employees exempted from Obamacare

January 28th, 2011 | Author: Posted by Ben Hart

Yesterday, the Deparment of Health and Human Services announced it had granted more than 500 new waivers to Obamacare’s requirement that health plans have annual limits of no less than $750,000. This annual limit requirement climbs to $1.25 million next year and then to $2 million.

The reason these exemptions from the law are needed is that Obamacare forces all health insurance consumers to over-insure themselves and pay high premiums as a result. Without the waivers, many companies, non-profits and unions would simply drop their health plans. As of 2014, the waivers will no longer be available — at least, that’s the way the law is written.

It is worth noting that there are 166 union benefits funds now exempted from this requirement, which account for about 40 percent of the exempted workers. This means that although there are only 14.6 million unionized employees in the United States, and 860,000 of them are already exempted from this provision of Obamacare.


BYE BYE Barry Soetoro

A Florida federal judge on Monday ruled that a key plank of the health overhaul passed last March is unconstitutional, dealing a second judicial blow to the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement.

The case is considered the most high-profile of a series of federal lawsuits against the health overhaul. Attorneys general and governors from 20 states initially filed the lawsuit, and six more got behind it earlier this month. In his ruling, Judge Roger Vinson, a Republican appointee, said that the law’s requirement that individuals carry insurance or pay a fee “is outside” Congress’s commerce clause and is “is not constitutional.”


Judge Kithil, of Marble Falls , TX . highlighted a few items from the Obama Care Law.
Many of you may not know what is in this bill, so you may be shocked. You can check this at:;


Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX – HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious
Please read this…….. especially the reference to pages 58 & 59


** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”

Honorable David Kithil

Marble Falls, Texas



Obamacare’s Promised Deficit ‘Reduction’ is False

by Charles Krauthammer

One of the frequent Democratic defenses against the GOP-led effort at repealing the massive healthcare law is that it actually would increase the deficit, not reduce it.

It is an argument that has been backed by the Congressional Budget Office and parroted by the mainstream media with surprisingly little detailed analysis: that President Barack Obama’s signature legislative effort manages to cut the deficit while providing healthcare for everyone. Who could argue with that?

But on Sunday, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer took a good look at the numbers and found them laughable.

In a column in The Washington Post, Krauthammer asked, “Suppose someone — say, the president of United States — proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I’ve got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion.

“He’d be laughed out of town. And yet, this is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare. During the debate over Republican attempts to repeal it, one of the Democrats’ major talking points has been that Obamacare reduces the deficit — and therefore repeal raises it — by $230 billion. Why, the Congressional Budget Office says exactly that.”

As Krauthammer points out, this boils down to a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in taxes. Using that logic, Democrats trumpet a net deficit reduction.

Like other examples of smoke-and-mirrors spending projections, the Obamacare bill was “gamed to produce a favorable CBO number.”

How? The entitlement it creates — government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans — doesn’t kick in until 2014. That means that any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures but capture 10 years of revenue. “With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive — i.e., deficit-reducing — number. Surprise,” Krauthammer points out.

Krauthammer also notes that Obamacare actually creates two new entitlements that will cost Americans for decades to come if the law isn’t repealed. It creates long-term care insurance that, with an aging population, “promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state.”

But how could such a costly program actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, as the CBO maintains?

The answer is that by collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years, you end up with a savings. A surplus.

Krauthammer quotes former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and scholars Joseph Antos and James Capretta: “Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used as ‘offset’ to grease the way for another entitlement.”

“That a health-care reform law of such enormous size and consequence, revolutionizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy, could be sold on such flimflammery is astonishing, even by Washington standards. What should Republicans do?

“Make the case. Explain the phony numbers, boring as the exercise may be. Better still, hold hearings and let the CBO director, whose integrity is beyond reproach, explain the numbers himself.”

But he adds, “This does not absolve the Republicans from producing a health-care replacement. They will and should be judged by how well their alternative addresses the needs of the uninsured and the anxieties of the currently insured. But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal.”

Read more on Krauthammer Dismembers Obamacare’s Promised Deficit ‘Reduction’

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !